3RU7AL

Post #320, the first two sentences.

A unicorn is defined according to its physical characteristics. Morality is not defined by physical characteristics. Morality is abstract. Empiricism works on tangible things, like unicorns, but not on abstract stuff, like morality.

You are bizarrely creating claims I didn't make and then attacking them.

No, consensus has no effect on facts.

You aren't irrational for preferring the taste of chocolate ice cream over vanilla or vice versa.

A unicorn is defined according to its physical characteristics.

Morality is not defined by physical characteristics. Morality is abstract. Empiricism works on tangible things, like unicorns, but not on abstract stuff, like morality.

We don't need to prove moral realism.

All we need to do is determine whether it's more rational than moral non-realism since one of the two must be true by law of excluded middle.

Having a moral principle be "axiomatically true" better evidences moral realism than non-realism. 

Moral realism is both intuitive and rational. They needn't be mutually exclusive. 

So, would you say, "self-reporting" is the primary way to determine if someone made a "free-will" choice?

Yes, probably.

I'm merely pointing out that if you change the definition of "free-will" then you must also change the definition of "morality".

I disagree. It is not the definition so much as the existence of.

If an action is made rationally (with thought), there may be moral consequences. If an action is made reflexively (without thought), there are none. The (current) definition of morality only changes when you say that free will does not exist.

Of course not all actions are as clear as those examples especially when intense emotion is involved.

And I still say that telling me what meaning (quaila) is applied to choices (quanta) is an opinion.

Look, can we stick to people? Dogs only have what is defined as free will in the very loosest sense of the word and certainly do not make moral choices.

If I believe that humans have the ability to make choices and you say yes, but those choices are meaningless, that is an opinion. Are you able to scientifically quantify the meaning of choices?

Free will is prima facie true. Determinism is not.

It is not useful to deny freewill. 

No. By prevented, I only mean no options. Your argument seems to claim that influences remove all options. I deny that.

It is similar to compatibilism. I don't believe in strict determinism nor do I find the word "freedom" appropriate as used by a compatibilist when applied to the definition of compatibilism. I am only arguing based on the definition of free will as "the ability to make a choice, unimpeded". Whether or not that renders free will meaningless is a different discussion and would certainly be a personal opinion.

I do not think that impeded is the right word. Again, influences would be more appropriate.

Constraint does not mean impeded. It just means options are limited, not non-existent. Impeded means prevented from choosing.

Question and answer key below:

Can mindless forces act rationally? (No)

Are my beliefs determined by mindlessness forces? (Yes)

Is determinism a rational belief? (Therefore, No)

I think you have to ignore an awful lot to dismiss the idea of free will not being readily demonstratable...

Limited options does not equate to "no options". All that is needed for free will, as defined, is two or more options rendering your argument invalid.

"Unimpeded" only refers to thought...

Free will is prima facie true.

Free will : The ability to make a choice, unimpeded.

Randomness refers to the unknown timing of an event whereas cause refers to an explanation as to how the event occurred. 

Dualists can just gift soul-stuff with any property, as required.

Holding the position that determinism is true cannot be rational because the mindless forces that installed that position in your brain are not rational.

Randomly determined does not mean non-causually determined.

The dualist says that istrue only for regular matter, not for soul-stuff. 

Free will is compatible with cause and effect...

By the definition "The ability to make a choice, unimpeded" then yes. I wouldn't say it is a rational choice though.

Free will does not violate cause and effect.

The word "free" is not included in the definition of free will.

It is the ability to make a choice, unimpeded.

Does the human brain have the ability to make a rational choice? Yes.

The reasons why a brain makes a choice are irrelevant.

Anyone who takes a philosophical viewpoint on anything requires rational justification of that position.

i' a devils advocate here, ok?

The materialist picture is thebrain is firstly caused into a physical state that means 'I want tea not coffee'.  In turn that causes the next physical brain state, which means 'I choose coffee'.   

The dualist does not deny the succession of physical brain states is entirely causal.  However dualism holds that physical brain states do not have mental meanings such as desires or choices.   The mental resides in the dualistic element, ie in the 'dualium', or as it usually called the 'soul' or 'self'.

How do we demonstrate the ability to have chosen otherwise? We cannot go back in time and choose again. Even if we could our knowledge of the future outcome would be a potential cause and the test would be inconclusive. If You have a method of testing your hypothesis please present it.

Mental causation.

"The phenomenon of mental causation, as may be apparent, is thoroughly commonplace and ubiquitous. But this is not the only reason why it is significant. It is absolutely fundamental to our concept of actions performed intentionally (as opposed to involuntarily), which, in turn, is central to those of agency, free will, and moral responsibility. An action, as philosophers use the term, is not a mere bodily motion like involuntarily blinking one's eyes. It is something one does intentionally, as when one winks to grab someone's attention. The distinction between a mere bodily movement and an action hinges on the possibility of mental causation, since actions have mental states, such as intentions, as direct causes. This distinction, in turn, is critical for gauging moral responsibility, since we attribute or withhold judgments of moral responsibility depending upon whether the agent acted intentionally."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/mental-c/

maybe 'Dualium' is what allows brains to manifest consciousness and real free will :(

That pushes us further down the chain of proof it doesn't resolve anything. Now we have moved from having to demonstrate freewill to having to demonstrate dualism and freewill.

At the least, free will is prima facie true.

If our positions are installed by mindless forces beyond our control then we're just experiencing the results that play out. Deterministic processes don't make choices or decisions. So when the day comes that physics or chemistry can behave otherwise, then we'll see if free will isn't required for rational decision-making. 

But I don't blame you because chemistry and physics is calling all the shots anyway.

I'm saying if my choices weren't free, wouldn't I just make the deterministic choices that the cells of my body are inclining me towards?

That would refute your position if it were since you're the one arguing that deterministic, material processes determine outcomes, not abstract reasons.

A rational discussion presupposes free will.

The OP title is "Can Morality Be Objective Without God?"

I think the possibly surprising answer must be no, because morality is not objective in the first place. 

but i don't think we have pinned down what morality is at all!

Here is the claim: rationality must entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes.

Something is not rational if it cannot choose between competing outcomes. What you said about robots and dogs would neither affirm nor disconfirm the claim.

I'm suggesting that choices are not predetermined by material causes, yes. AI is programmed by algorithms. It's not rational at all.

My position is that rationality must entail the ability to choose between competing outcomes. This is why we don't consider robots to be rational.

No, I simply can do things for ANY reason, not just because of some deterministic physical law

Right but we can't measure morality only with the physical but prettiness we can, no?

If determinism is true, rationality isn't possible because rationality entails the ability to choose between competing outcomes. That alone would make each and every statement you make a-rational and you would have no rational basis for any of your arguments or statements.

Well maybe never to exchange her and I'm sure they'd love her more, but they'd be irrational for seeing her as physically more beautiful. 

Ok, well one could make a prettiness judgment only based on physical parameters, but one could not do that with morality.

That's what I was pointing out, not that all instances of prettiness are physical, just that they could be exclusively physical.

Morality, not.

So do you, 3R, think morality is in the 'prettiness-' or the 'weight-' class of properties?

Imagine a woman being morbidly obese, smelling like rotten cheese, acne all over her face, patchy and stringy hair, deep and raspy voice, a beard under her neck, has only two rotten front teeth, a giant and crooked nose, and ears that stick out of her hair. 

She is just as beautiful as Jessica alba.

Probably could have just written your own RFD, no?

What determines our choices?